4

I’m curious, since Satmar believes the three oaths prohibit a Zionist state of Israel, how do they reconcile it with the fact that the oaths weren’t merely for Jews to not rebel against the gentile nations and to not have political independence in Eretz Yisrael but also for the gentiles to not persecute the Jews. Presumably after the holocaust, pogroms, expulsion from the Arab states, communist persecution in the Soviet Union etc. that would constitute oppression of the nations for the oaths not to apply right? Furthermore, are there any Hasidic rebbes who have a different interpretation of the three oaths to Satmar?

user6781
  • 3,325
  • 1
  • 13
  • 45
Kirk
  • 4,220
  • 5
  • 31
  • 1
    What does one oath have to do with another? – Double AA Oct 30 '23 at 14:31
  • 1
    I’m asking if the three oaths were given as one package why nations violating them wouldn’t nullify the deal @DoubleAA – Kirk Oct 30 '23 at 14:32
  • 1
    Well, that's quite an assumption you have there. "If I assume breaking A causes B, why do I not see B even though A is broken??" – Double AA Oct 30 '23 at 14:33
  • This is the classical "Interdependence argument" (based on a Gemara in Sotah 20a) and the Satmar Rav goes in great detail to explain how and why. The classic Midrash in Shir HaShirim is not a covenant between the Jewish people and the nations, but between G-d and the Jewish people and the nations. The Zera Shimshon's commentary on that Midrash says that only the oath of not rebelling is interdependant. "to rebel against the nations"- this is why we were allowed to fight Haman's followers, because they started. – Shmuel Oct 30 '23 at 15:05
  • Refer to here: https://www.truetorahjews.org/qanda/interdependence – Shmuel Oct 30 '23 at 15:13
  • You might find this relevant Is it Halachically forbidden to go to Israel? – mbloch Oct 30 '23 at 15:16
  • So, 'why would violating them would not nullify the deal"- because it was not an oath between the Jewish people and the nations, but between G-d and us and the nations. – Shmuel Oct 30 '23 at 15:46
  • http://chabadpedia.co.il/images/d/dd/%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8_%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%97%D7%9B%D7%9D.pdf – shmosel Oct 30 '23 at 19:31
  • I believe the Netziv made an argument similar to OP. – N.T. Oct 31 '23 at 03:43
  • Not speaking for Satmar, but learned this Shabbat in Midrash Tanchuma Devarim 3 about Yoav consulting the Sanhedrin about attacking Aram-Naharaim, because of their claim that they were the Children of Lavan and therefore they was a pact to not attack. The Sanhedrin said that the pact was nullified because they broke it first by Balak/Bilaam. Made me think of this, although again not to do with Satmar specifically afaik – Rabbi Kaii Jan 13 '24 at 22:56

0 Answers0